People v. Sally
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Roel "Ruel" Sally was charged with Murder in two separate Informations for the killing of Edwin Lucas y Simon and Jose Bersero y Singco on January 30, 1994, in Quezon City. The prosecution alleged that the killings were qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. The cases were consolidated. Accused-appellant was arrested in 2003 and pleaded not guilty. Procedural History: The prosecution presented Roger Lara as the sole eyewitness, Renato Lucas regarding the victim's income, and Dr. Valentin Bernales to interpret necropsy reports. Roger Lara testified that he witnessed the accused-appellant hitting the sleeping Jose Bersero with a pipe, attempting to attack him, and then attacking the sleeping Edwin Lucas. The defense presented accused-appellant's alibi, claiming he was working as a manual hauler at Balintawak Market. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty of Murder in both cases and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity to the heirs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of murder, suggesting homicide instead, and questioned the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Roger Lara, citing inconsistencies between his sworn statement and his court testimony. He also questioned the finding of treachery due to the non-presentation of the alleged murder weapon.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC and CA erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder, and whether the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Roger Lara, is credible despite alleged inconsistencies with his sworn statement. Whether treachery was sufficiently proven to qualify the killings to murder. What are the proper damages to be awarded.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of accused-appellant Roel "Ruel" Sally for two counts of Murder. The Court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each crime, with modified awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellant and the credibility of Roger Lara's testimony: The Court found no real inconsistency between Roger Lara's sworn statement and his testimony in open court. The alleged variance regarding the sequence of events and Lara's ability to witness the attack on Edwin Lucas was clarified by Lara's testimony. The Court reiterated the principle that discrepancies between affidavits and testimonies do not necessarily discredit a witness. The defense of alibi must fail when the accused is positively identified by a credible witness. The RTC's findings on credibility are entitled to great respect. On the presence of treachery: The Court held that treachery was sufficiently proven to qualify the killings to murder. The essence of treachery lies in the employment of means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender. In this case, the victims were attacked while sleeping, rendering them unable to defend themselves. The eyewitness testimony established that the accused-appellant attacked the sleeping victims, ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to himself. This mode of attack falls within the definition of treachery. On the damages awarded: The Court modified the damages awarded by the CA. It affirmed the civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 for each victim. Moral damages were awarded at PhP 50,000 for each victim. Exemplary damages were awarded at PhP 30,000 for each victim due to the presence of treachery. Temperate damages were awarded because the families failed to present proof of burial and medical expenses but the court found that some pecuniary loss was suffered.
Main Doctrine
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. Discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies do not necessarily discredit a witness, especially when the testimony in open court clarifies the matter and the sworn statement is ex parte.